Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: JKoerner007 on June 24, 2017, 08:40:51 pm
-
With the success of Sigma lenses ... which are now approaching, rivaling, and (in a few models) surpassing Canon and Nikkor lenses ... and even the Zeiss Otuses (Otii?) in some respects ... I am surprised that no one seems equally-interested in the Sigma camera line (Merrill DSLR / Quattro mirrorless).
What makes the Sigma camera line unique is that it is based on the Foveon Sensor, which I remember reading about years ago, but yet even today no one seems to care.
By many accounts I have read, recently even, the Foveon sensor surpasses the Bayer sensor in many important respects. Right now, there are two premium Sigma cameras:
- Sigma SD Quattro H (https://www.sigmaphoto.com/cameras/mirrorless/sd-quattro-h-camera) (mirrorless, APS-H, 51mpx)
- Sigma SD1 Merrill Digital (https://www.sigmaphoto.com/cameras/dslr/sd1-merrill-digital-slr-camera-0) (DSLR, 46mpx)
Sigma asserts that its mirrorless, APS-H Foveon sensor is equivalent to a 51mpx traditional Bayer sensor.
It asserts that its Merrill DSLR produces "groundbreaking" image fidelity.
To this end, I have also seen many image comparisons (https://www.photigy.com/sigma-foveon-sensor-review-dp3-merrill-camera) (in this case Pentax vs. Sigma) where, if you look at the detail captured by the Foveon, in comparison to the Bayer, the difference is quite dramatic.
Yet, for some reason, nobody seems to care. The basic gist regarding the pervasive apathy toward Sigma cameras appears to be the limitations of the Sigma camera functionality (slow, terrible AF, limited controls, etc.), yet when the Sigma cameras are used on simple, static subjects the Merrill and its Foveon sensor is supposed to really outshine even Sony's best Bayer sensors.
Anyway, with all this talk about "Sony should buy Nikon" (for its lenses), my thinking is Sony should buy Sigma ... not just for its lenses (which are also superior to Sony's) ... but to pick up the dropped ball of Sigma's Foveon sensor acquisition, and really do something exciting and new with these Foveon sensors.
In keeping with this, Canon is supposed to be coming out with a 120mp sensor (http://www.canonwatch.com/canons-120mp-full-frame-sensor-is-not-a-bayer-sensor-its-based-on-new-technology-cw4), in 2018, which is supposed to be based on X-Trans (Foveon-like) technology, rather than the traditional Bayer-type technology. If Sony keeps sticking with Bayer ... will Canon, one day, be the premier sensor-producer if it's headed in that direction?
Anyway, just thinking out loud here, regarding future sensor direction, why no one seems to care about Sigma cameras (like they do their lenses), and wondering if in fact the future will see more and more of Foveon (and Foveon-like) technology.
-
This is vey interesting! I have been thinking how a sensor like this would work on a medium-format
camera or back? I see they now do some kind of multishot with 7 images done at just one shot.
This should be very interesting to many?
We really need companies like Sigma who dares to follow different ideas!
We should ll buy one just for support of the different ideas :)
-
I am the happy owner of a SD H. ;)
It is very good at base ISO on a tripod and is incredible value... but it sees little use. Probably suffering from the competition from the rest of my line up. I may end up selling it, not sure yet.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am the happy owner of a SD H. ;)
It is very good at base ISO on a tripod and is incredible value... but it sees little use. Probably suffering from the competition from the rest of my line up. I may end up selling it, not sure yet.
Cheers,
Bernard
Have you tested it with the Otus lenses?
-
Have you tested it with the Otus lenses?
No, just with the excellent Sigma 20mm f1.4 Art and 85mm f1.4 art.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
No, just with the excellent Sigma 20mm f1.4 Art and 85mm f1.4 art.
Cheers,
Bernard
Ok, but I guess it has Nikon mount and could use the Otus? Would be interesting to see how the Sigma
"multishot" performs with the Otus?
-
Ok, but I guess it has Nikon mount and could use the Otus? Would be interesting to see how the Sigma
"multishot" performs with the Otus?
No, it only has Sigma mount.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
This is vey interesting! I have been thinking how a sensor like this would work on a medium-format
camera or back? I see they now do some kind of multishot with 7 images done at just one shot.
This should be very interesting to many?
I agree with you :)
That appears to be the Foveon's (X-Trans') strong point: extremely high-fidelity images ... at base ISO.
We really need companies like Sigma who dares to follow different ideas!
We should ll buy one just for support of the different ideas :)
Again, we agree!
Bernard mentioned some of the limitations ... and really underscored my motive in making this post: the technology needs support.
Right now, "nobody cares," because Sigma hasn't developed its camera line to compete with Canon and Nikon in the same fashion as, for example, Sony.
The Merrill/Quattro cameras have very little "all around" use, especially in regards to AF as well as performance at ISOs over 800.
However, for static shots, on a tripod, at Base ISO, this is where the Foveon shines 8)
Canon apparently realizes this ... namely, that the X-Trans sensor is better-suited to Base ISO shooting ... which is why their "beyond 100mpx" future sensor size appears to be employing an X-Trans (Foveon-like) technology. Remember, Base ISO is what has kept the Nikon D810 as one of the most popular landscape DSLR of all time ... approaching medium-format-like results, at ISO 64, with an Otus lens. The D810 is still the leader in this regard.
From the cursory reading I've done Foveon sensors, they excel the Bayor sensor at base ISO capability, which is why Sigma Corporation purchased Foveon, Inc.. However, while Sigma is approaching (equalling and, in some cases, even excelling) even the best lenses today ... its overall camera usefulness (Merrill / Quattro) is below those of Canon and Nikon as well as Sony. Sigma just doesn't have the AF camera-crafting acumen of the giants. This is impediment is further exacerbated by the fact Sigma mount has zero support from other lens manufacturers (e.g., Otus, as you suggested).
This is why I believe it would be far more interesting to me if Sony were to purchase this technology than purchasing Nikon. First, I don't think Sony would gain as much by purchasing Nikon (who already uses Sony-owned sensors). Yes, Sony would gain the best primes AF telephotos in the world ... but they'd be securing a redundancy in sensors (they already own them).
However, by purchasing Sigma, Sony would be adding better lens technology than their own as well (as the Sigma Art lenses are most assuredly better than Sony's--as are the Sigma zooms-- as well as Sigma prime super-telephoto lenses). Better still, since Sigma owns Foveon Inc., and since Sony most definitely is in "sensor-company-acquisition mode," Sony would be securing a double coup in adding Foveon, Inc. to their acquired sensor-company portfolio.
Better still, for you and me, Sony's AF + camera-usefulness technology far exceeds Sigma's, so they would essentially be "picking-up the Foveon ball" and running with it. Even better, Nikon Corp, who already purchases its sensors from Sony, would now be able to add this Foveon technology to its base-ISO cameras.
Right now, the Foveon sensor is limited by Sigma's own camera technology limitations: its only available in Sigma mount. But how that would change if Sony got its hands on this Sensor! Not only would Foveon sensor use be expanded to the Sony mounts, but (most likely) through this to other system mounts (Nikon, Olympus, Pentax) via Sony supply.
In closing, if the Canon Rumors are correct, the industry leader, Canon, has already realized this, and is developing its own high-megapix cameras in the X-Trans sensor direction.
Perhaps there will be an eventual bifurcation in sensor technology across all platoforms: Bayer sensors (which perform better at high ISOs) will continue to lead the fast-action/sports/wildlife lower mpx market (like the 1Dx, D5, and A9) ... but where Foveon/X-Trans sensors (which have better base ISO performance) will begin to dominate the Landscape/still market (like the 5D, D810, and A7r), especially as they approach/exceed 100mpx. It was directly stated that X-Trans favors sensors over 100mpx.
-
I tried the Sigma Merril cameras. They were not user friendly to the extreme. Add that to the processing problems getting the images in a usable form, it was a waste of great technology. 8)
-
I tried the Sigma Merril cameras. They were not user friendly to the extreme.
Yep. This is especially true if you need fast-action, high-ISO capability.
However, for basic functionality in a static environment, the results are primo.
Add that to the processing problems getting the images in a usable form, it was a waste of great technology. 8)
Which again begs the thread topic 8)
What if this technology were no longer being "wasted" ... but instead was acquired by Sony (or, hell, Nikon) ... to where these sensors were then put into cameras made by the best camera engineers on the planet?
Remember, Sigma used to be considered a 3rd rate lens (like Tamron), but they're now becoming the guys to look out for. For that matter, if Sigma itself brought its own camera-functionality up to the level of its Art lens line, and then went head-to-head with Sony in the landscape department, that would be another interesting twist in the ongoing camera saga.
I would seriously consider buying the Quattro SD H for reverse-macro. The only reason I don't is all of the limitations (no reverse-mount solution, no Adobe Lightroom/C1 support, etc.). If you read the B&H Reviews (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1234172-REG/sigma_sd_quattro_h_mirrorless.html), the camera delivers within its parameters ... but they are just too limited at this point.
So I agree it seems like wasted technology ... again hence the thread topic.
If Canon does bring a 120mpx X-Trans camera out, as prognosticated for 2018, that will be my most anticipated release for next year. And if Sony acquires Sigma, or negotiates a sale of Foveon, that will open up a whole new era for the rest of us. Sigma itself could "shake the jar," too, by suddenly coming out with an A9-like Quattro ... or A7rII-like ... that significantly upgrades the functionality ... and is somehow able to enlist Lightroom support.
-
The name x-trans is a bit misleading. As far as I know that is a Fuji term and only applies to a filter array over the sensor.
Canon has foevon style patents going back to at least 2013 but they have yet to produce anything. I also assume Sigma still has the patent right to the true foveon design so Canon wil need to make some type of change to the design.
As to the merits of Foveon no doubt it produce amazing detail. But so far only in APS-C size. Chips are best shot at ISO base and can't handle low light. Raw conversion very limited. Not sure if C1 has support and last time I checked Adode did not.
The gains you can get from multishot IMO are very close if not equal to Foveon especially when you consider use of a full frame sensor. Example Pentax K1. Not perfect but excellent detail and very clean files especially higher ISO due to multi sampling. The K1 has its warts mainly due to Pentax and if Canon or Nikon ever designed such a camera (please Nikon) I think it would be a head turner for sure.
Paul Caldwell
-
The Foveon sensor is registered as X3 not X-Trans.
http://www.foveon.com/article.php?a=67
I haven't found any relationship between the Foveon sensor and Canon. Sigma purchased Foveon in 2008 according to the website.
-
A few facts which may help...
The Sigma processing program has gotten much better. I tried it last year and it still sucked. Now it's faster and, so far, not crashing on my Mac.
The Sigma SD Quattro, SD Quattro H and now even the DP0/DP1/DP2/DP3 Quattro are all capable of producing DNG files IN CAMERA so you can load them directly in Capture One (and LR and Camera RAW).
There is a free third party program which will convert Sigma RAW files to DNG, including a command line option and I think even in batches (haven't tried it, reports are good).
So the current generation of Sigmacameras, from a post processing point of view, are all much more usable than they were a few months ago.
-
Looks like I got X-3 and X-trans confused so thanks for the clarification. X-Trans is Fuji I think, similar but different.
Story, thanks for the update, that is very encouraging.
-
Canon has been patenting sensor design similar to Foveon for several years now. They have yet produced a sensor for a digital camera yet.
This is from dpreview and there is a lot more in the archives of Canon rumors.
https://m.dpreview.com/articles/4160862998/canon-patents-refinement-of-foveon-style-multi-layer-sensor
Paul Caldwell
-
Looks like I got X-3 and X-trans confused so thanks for the clarification. X-Trans is Fuji I think, similar but different.
Story, thanks for the update, that is very encouraging.
Only in the X of the name.
X-trans it is a Fuji technology that changes the typical bayer array to make the distribution of red, blue and green pixels more random... The idea was to simulate the randomness of film... But it complicates things in the demosacing process of RAW processors.
Foveon on the other hand, it uses a pixel that registers the three color values at the same time. It also makes a hell for RAW processors, since they are expecting a bayer matrix or similar, they have to do a custom and new processing engine (nearly) for just being able to process foveon files.
-
Anyway, with all this talk about "Sony should buy Nikon" (for its lenses), my thinking is Sony should buy Sigma ... not just for its lenses (which are also superior to Sony's) ... but to pick up the dropped ball of Sigma's Foveon sensor acquisition, and really do something exciting and new with these Foveon sensors.
I highly doubt Sony could buy Sigma even if they wanted.
If you read any interview to Sigma CEO, my favorite CEO in the camera world, you will find out hat Sigma it is a family company, totally owned by one family with the unique objective to do lenses and cameras. It looks like they have a particular philosophy outside the capitalist minds and I highly doubt that they will sell the company, putting in danger what their father build and the loyal employees.
In the other hand, every time someone mentions that Sony should buy X I always think, why? It looks like they are doing quite well in this sector without needing to buy anything. The only way I see that Sony is going to buy other company it is if the Japan government forces then to do it. Like when they bought 20% of Olympus shares when Olympus was about to crash... Or right now that Toshiba is selling its memory chip division and manufacturing plants and the Japan government it is trying very hard nor Foxcon (Chinese company), Samsung (Korean) or Westerm Digital (EEUU) buys it.
-
I highly doubt Sony could buy Sigma even if they wanted.
If you read any interview to Sigma CEO, my favorite CEO in the camera world, you will find out hat Sigma it is a family company, totally owned by one family with the unique objective to do lenses and cameras. It looks like they have a particular philosophy outside the capitalist minds and I highly doubt that they will sell the company, putting in danger what their father build and the loyal employees.
Only reason to suggest Sony buy is the repeated bring-up of Sony and Nikon + the fact Sony has been actively buying Sensor-producing companies.
Interesting info on Sigma, thanks.
-
Actually the way the Foveon sensors work like in the Quattro and the new SD cameras is they use a full array for blue but the red and green are binned. So all the detail and luminance comes from the blue layer, as you go further down the chip in depth to the last layer, the red it can be quite noisy. I have a dp2 quattro and a dp3 merrill. They are different in many ways. When everything is perfect you can get some amazing images, but the Quattro just does not have the dynamic range as say perhaps the Fuji. With the SPP processing you can create super resolution images that are much larger than the sensor size, I believe they use a drizzle type algorithm. Highlight recovery is problematic. When they are "on" for the image it can be spectacular but I find I just do not use them that much, it was more for novelty reasons. Though the Quattro can be an excellent monochrome camera with the right processing. The noise comes from the fact that the light does penetrate the lower layers but it takes a lot more light to get a S/N. Hence in low light with lots of amplification they are pretty bad in terms of noise. The other problem I have had with the Sigma's like the DP Quattro is that on a hot summer day they can overheat. Or take a serious of rapid shots or bracket a lot quickly and the camera gets quite warm. When I was evaluation the DP2 Quattro as a loaner from Sigma, using it on a hot summer day in SoCal it overheated and shut down, I was getting a flashing temperature icon on the lcd, and the camera was really quite hot. That does not help the noise level either.
Interesting technology but I think it is still a lot of work to get to current standards.
Alan
-
Only reason to suggest Sony buy is the repeated bring-up of Sony and Nikon + the fact Sony has been actively buying Sensor-producing companies.
Interesting info on Sigma, thanks.
Yes, Sony sensor division is bigger than camera sensor division... and camera sensor division, including the ones they sell to Nikon, Fuji, Olympus... is less than what they make for mobile phones... for the sensor news that I'm reading, looks like they are more focused in HDR sensors (very interesting for the increasing intelligent car market) and global shutter sensors for their video market...
I see Sony, like canon has some foveon like like patents, but maybe they just prefer to increase megapixels like crazy... after all... that will give them more color detail, the biggest advantage of foveon sensors
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
X-trans it is a Fuji technology that changes the typical bayer array to make the distribution of red, blue and green pixels more random... The idea was to simulate the randomness of film... But it complicates things in the demosacing process of RAW processors.
Not all RAW processors.
-
Not all RAW processors.
Mainly my phrase was poorly written, what I meant, since it is different than typical Bayer Matrix, makes necessary that RAW developers have to update their demosaicing algorithms to consider this case... some more successful than other doing that
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
Well said, David.
-
Foveon is marketed as having three times the resolution of an equivalent normal camera. That's great marketing, but otherwise hogwosh.
With really sharp lenses, no AA filter, and a great processing engines (e.g. Capture One), we can recover over 93% of the spatial detail (compared to monochrome sensors, the gold standard) in real-world imaging. To get anywhere near the marketed advantage you have to be shooting subject matter that has detail which is exactly one pixel in size, very high in saturation, and completely random in pattern. No process recovers 100% of the spatial detail, so the theoretical maximum difference is, at absolute most, a few percent compared to a single-shot camera with the same number of actual pixels (and the way Foveon has been historically marketed it often required a little digging to find out the actual pixel count, not the inflated "equivalent" number).
The advantages of multi-shot, three-sensor scan backs, color-wheel-capture, and (in theory) Foveon were profound 20 years ago. Most of those advantages have since evaporated with two decades of improvements in single-shot Bayer cameras and software (where 99% of R+D money has been), while the disadvantages of those more esoteric processes remain.
See 16:41 in our Process Control (https://dtdch.com/cultural-heritage-webinars/process-control/) for a comparison of where the math was years ago versus today.
Like with any camera hype, try it yourself before you believe the marketing (including, of course, the marketing we produce; call us on it and we'll be glad to set you up to test it yourself).
-
Doug,
Those are a bit strong don't you think? Bayer by default is capturing 1 color per pixel sensel as I understand it, thus if you capture red, you are interpolating for green and blue. That is Bayer. So anytime you interpolate you lose details.
No doubt the IQ CCD and CMOS backs are very sharp and can capture a lot of details, but I would stand to think that a 50MP multishot vs 50MP CMOS IQ back, the multi shot would have more details, unless there is movement. C1 does an excellent job on Phase back files no doubt but you are still working with interpolation for color.
The Foveon theory is sound, in that you are not interpolating for any color, thus you will not have loss of details. There issues, as many have mentioned on this forum and other sites, to the current tech in the state it's in, but that IMO is mainly due to poor raw conversion attempts by various companies and the fact that none of the Foveon chips in use by a DSLR can capture DR past base ISO due to noise and they are not a low light capture device optimally. However in the right light conditions, (kinda like CCD technology) they can make a very clean and detailed capture.
I can speak the advantages of multishot on 35mm, as a Pentax K1 capture in Pixel shift, I feel would surpasses a similar P45+ capture, I have plenty of both to work with. 36 vs 39 base MP, the K1 will out resolve the P45+ if Pixel shift is in use, both in resolution and Dynamic range. The K1/pixel shift tech also has issues, but advantages are also very appealing:
1. excellent dynamic range, superior to DR at any ISO setting, due to the multiple sampling.
2. Superior detail recovery
The main downside being movement, which depending on the raw converter can either ruin the capture or have some adverse issues.
The Bayer solution is a sound process and has been around for a long time and proven itself, however there are newer technologies that just have not been embraced by camera companies such as Foveon multi layer or multi shot.
Paul Caldwell
-
Great post, Paul.
-
Foveon is marketed as having three times the resolution of an equivalent normal camera. That's great marketing, but otherwise hogwosh.
Hogwash? I don't think so.
With really sharp lenses, no AA filter, and a great processing engines (e.g. Capture One), we can recover over 93% of the spatial detail (compared to monochrome sensors, the gold standard) in real-world imaging.
In other words, with the D810 ... only?
The advantages of multi-shot, three-sensor scan backs, color-wheel-capture, and (in theory) Foveon were profound 20 years ago. Most of those advantages have since evaporated with two decades of improvements in single-shot Bayer cameras and software (where 99% of R+D money has been), while the disadvantages of those more esoteric processes remain.
Yeah but ... how do you think the two systems would compare, in another 20 years, with 99% of R&D being focused on Foveon (and like) technologies ... while Bayer systems stand still? ;)
-
Hogwash? I don't think so.
I've got a closet full of top Bayer gear in NYC and LA and studios in both. If you ever want to do a side by side let me know.
In other words, with the D810 ... only?
Or a few dozen models of digital backs.
Yeah but ... how do you think the two systems would compare, in another 20 years, with 99% of R&D being focused on Foveon (and like) technologies ... while Bayer systems stand still? ;)
EXACTLY. If Foveon had came early and strong early in sensor development and won some momentum early on it would have likely stayed ahead because Bayer math would have stood still for want of R+D and the various problems with Foveon would have been the ones receiving continuous R+D. But that wasn't how things went.
The same could be said of many technologies. If all R+D into flight was focused for 100 years on lighter-than-air travel we'd have dirigibles that were fast and cheap and a dirigible docking station on the Empire State building (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/realestate/26scapes.html). But airplanes won out (plus that whole Hindenburg thing) and that's where all the R+D went.
As for whether that's going to happen now in reverse ("20 years, with 99% of R&D being focused on Foveon")... very unlikely. Bayer had a big problem: the math to fill in the missing color is really complicated and really CPU intensive. In the 80s we were terrible at it. In the 90s we were bad at it. In the 2000s we were getting pretty good at it. Now we are really stinking good at it. Again: 93% spatial recovery or better in real world pictures as of Capture One 9 as measured by objective standards like FADGI and Metamorfoze (https://dtdch.com/fadgi-image-performance-report/). So the one achilles heal of Bayer is now, at best, a heel which is moderately tingly when the weather is changing.
-
Those are a bit strong don't you think? Bayer by default is capturing 1 color per pixel sensel as I understand it, thus if you capture red, you are interpolating for green and blue. That is Bayer. So anytime you interpolate you lose details.
Absolutely! When Bayer algorithms were brand new the amount could approach 66% depending on the color and nature of the subject, and was very likely to cause artifacts. That was a huge difference!
Now, by objective measurements, (see previous post) that loss is around 7% or less.
Foveon marketing would say every one of their "pixels" counts 3x. When the reality, objectively measured is closer to 1.07x, I'm comfortable calling it hogwash.
No doubt the IQ CCD and CMOS backs are very sharp and can capture a lot of details, but I would stand to think that a 50MP multishot vs 50MP CMOS IQ back, the multi shot would have more details, unless there is movement. C1 does an excellent job on Phase back files no doubt but you are still working with interpolation for color.
Absolutely. Again, up to around 7% more detail with modern algorithms used for the single-shot.
Back in the day, for example, prestigious museums and libraries were very heavy users of multishot. Now that pendulum has swung hard toward 60mp, 80mp and 100mp single-shot cameras (here's a very partial list (https://dtdch.com/our-clients/) to backup the statement).
The Bayer solution is a sound process and has been around for a long time and proven itself, however there are newer technologies that just have not been embraced by camera companies such as Foveon multi layer...
Foveon is, in no way, new. It's the fusion power of camera sensors. I first heard about it in the late 90s (Foveon, not fusion power).
Look, I'm the first to say that things can change. Foveon (or some other currently unheard of technology) may be the sensor of the mid 2020s. After all, at some point it seems likely fusion will happen and it will be awesome.
My only point of coming on to the thread was that if you (like the OP) are reading marketing that says an "APS-H Foveon sensor is equivalent to a 51mpx traditional Bayer sensor." and expecting that to hold up to actual testing... you will find that is absolutely, unequivocally, not even close to right.
-
a Pentax K1 capture in Pixel shift, I feel would surpasses a similar P45+ capture... The K1/pixel shift tech also has issues, but advantages are also very appealing:
I think if you make a direct comparison (same lens, blah blah, then print the same size) you'd find them very similar, with neither distinctly better across the board.
But that just shows microstepping is a great technology in some situations. If nothing is moving, the sensor is small and light, and the res of the sensor is reasonable, it can greatly improve results. That a 2016 Pentax K1, using pixel shift, can compete with a single-shot medium format sensor developed in 2004, when the camera/subject are mostly static, speaks both to the strength of pixel-shift technology on low res sensors, and the strength of a high quality single-shot Bayer sensor, no?
The problem with pixel-shift (beyond that it doesn't work well when camera or subject are moving) is two fold:
- Microstepping is harder with smaller pixel sizes (more precision required)
- Microstepping is harder with larger sized sensors (more mass to move)
Hence microstepping with higher res becomes exponentially harder.
You'll notice neither Hasselblad nor Sinar have come out with a new multishot camera using a sensor with higher res than 50mp, despite higher res sensors being available for 9 years. That speaks to both the lower demand for multishot (already a niche 9 years ago) and the difficulty of moving a sensor minutely enough, with enough precision, quickly enough, to do multishot at really high res.
Pixel shifting is a great tool for the K1. To have that much detail for static-ish subject matter in a camera so small and affordable is fantastic. Pentax is smartly finding features/niches the bigger players can't or won't play in and exploiting them. But if you're expecting that technology to drive the ultra-high res cameras of the future, then I think you're betting on the wrong pony. But I could be wrong! Time will tell.
-
Everybody does marketing that's true.
There is still something special to the Foveon pixels and I think that I see more that 7% improvement over bayer at same megapixel level.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Everybody does marketing that's true.
There is still something special to the Foveon pixels and I think that I see more that 7% improvement over bayer at same megapixel level.
Cheers,
Bernard
Yeh, more like 8.5% improvement I would think. ;D
-
Everybody does marketing that's true.
There is still something special to the Foveon pixels and I think that I see more that 7% improvement over bayer at same megapixel level.
Fair enough. I don't agree but reasonable people can disagree on the exact amount; it's dependent on subject type, method of measure, and notably which Bayer pixels in which raw convertor etc etc. But you'd agree the improvement is not 3x or anywhere near it yes?
-
Fair enough. I don't agree but reasonable people can disagree on the exact amount; it's dependent on subject type, method of measure, and notably which Bayer pixels in which raw convertor etc etc. But you'd agree the improvement is not 3x or anywhere near it yes?
Hi Doug;
The purpose of this post was 1) to call attention to how "nobody seems to care" about this superior Foveon technology; 2) that this technology appears better-suited to static shots (landscape, macro); 3) to envision a "what if" hypothesis regarding Sony or Nikon getting ahold of these sensors and developing them with their superior camera-crafting skills; and 4) to point out that Canon is itself rumored to be coming out with a similar, Foveon-like, 120mp sensor for 2018 ... because it lends itself better to this kind of imagery (still/static, rather than low-light, fast-action sports).
I specifically intimated that, maybe in the future, there will be a bifurcation: namely Foveon-like sensors for huge MP still cameras (think D900, 5D Mark V) ... so you criticizing the lens for its poor handling of movement/low light is letting the cat out of the transparent bag. We already know this.
So back to the point:
If, as you say, this technology was "profound" 20 years ago ... and if, for the last 20 years, 99% of the R&D has been with Bayer sensors ... and, if, after a 20-year advantage, the Foveon sensor is, as you admit, still superior to Bayer in still imagery ... can you not see the conclusion? Foveon is the better still technology.
So, again, the point is ... if companies like Canon are going to spend the next 20 years developing Foveon-type sensors (for huge, detail-oriented sensors) ... that is something to be excited about :D
That's all ...
-
I think if you make a direct comparison (same lens, blah blah, then print the same size) you'd find them very similar, with neither distinctly better across the board.
But that just shows microstepping is a great technology in some situations. If nothing is moving, the sensor is small and light, and the res of the sensor is reasonable, it can greatly improve results. That a 2016 Pentax K1, using pixel shift, can compete with a single-shot medium format sensor developed in 2004, when the camera/subject are mostly static, speaks both to the strength of pixel-shift technology on low res sensors, and the strength of a high quality single-shot Bayer sensor, no?
The problem with pixel-shift (beyond that it doesn't work well when camera or subject are moving) is two fold:
- Microstepping is harder with smaller pixel sizes (more precision required)
- Microstepping is harder with larger sized sensors (more mass to move)
Hence microstepping with higher res becomes exponentially harder.
You'll notice neither Hasselblad nor Sinar have come out with a new multishot camera using a sensor with higher res than 50mp, despite higher res sensors being available for 9 years. That speaks to both the lower demand for multishot (already a niche 9 years ago) and the difficulty of moving a sensor minutely enough, with enough precision, quickly enough, to do multishot at really high res.
Pixel shifting is a great tool for the K1. To have that much detail for static-ish subject matter in a camera so small and affordable is fantastic. Pentax is smartly finding features/niches the bigger players can't or won't play in and exploiting them. But if you're expecting that technology to drive the ultra-high res cameras of the future, then I think you're betting on the wrong pony. But I could be wrong! Time will tell.
Hi Doug,
I don't have the time or patience to do multiquotes, but you did make some good points for sure.
1. I agree 100% that the current state of Foveon, in it's APS-C format would have a hard time equaling the output of a 50MP Bayer, as in the IQ350.
2. The C1/P1 algorithms have most definitely improved especially with C1 10.x and have drawn the pixel to pixel gap very close.
3. The Foveon message on total MP output tends to take the three separate sensors and multiply them by 3, so 15MP x 3 45MP output, which IMO is not what you get. You get a very detailed 15MP image. If this in now interpolated to 50MP, I agree the 50MP sensor native will odds
win.
4. If you add the huge advantage that the 100MP CMOS sensor adds, since you have such large room for cropping, Foveon has a ways to go.
The K1 output in pixel shift can move, unlike other multishots. This is something most don't understand. The camera allows for Pixel shfit with Motion correction or no motion correction. The KEY is that NO raw converter besides Silkypix can handle the images with motion correction. LR and C1 are worthless here, C1 even more as they have not even tried to work with the multishot pixel shift. LR made one pass and as usual for Adobe, (once and done) and their solution is less than adequate. I only blame Pentax for this, it's their camera and they should have worked with Adobe to get a better solution and at least attempted to get something from C1.
The amount of movement can't be extreme, but Silkypix and K1 can handle quite a bit of wind movement and still make the correction without aliasing. This link to a post I made on getdpi, has some examples of just how much movement can be accommodated. It's much more than you seem to believe.
https://www.getdpi.com/forum/pentax/59030-examples-silkypix-vs-lr-pixel-shift-conversions-cross-posted.html (https://www.getdpi.com/forum/pentax/59030-examples-silkypix-vs-lr-pixel-shift-conversions-cross-posted.html)
However Silkypix is not mainstream, doesn't allow for dng out (last time I used it 6 months ago) and their workflow doesn't work for me.
If a 100MP or 120MP Foveon style chip does arrive, then that will be the time to really compare things and as you point out that's a long way off. However Pixel shift technology is here now and could be used by a lot more companies, including Phase One for some amazing results.
Paul Caldwell
-
On the other hand, under the right conditions, you can't get more compact than one of the fixed-lens Merrills, and they don't need much of a tripod either. The truly irritating thing about the cameras is that they don't have wired shutter release. How dumb is that! I keep thinking about jerry-rigging some 3D print-job Merrill fitting attached to an old mechanical shutter release.
-
I had and sold all three DP Merrill cameras, mainly because the files are almost unusable. Images taken in anything other than sunlight, even at base ISO, have significant banding, color splotches, noise, etc.
Add to that, most of the sharpness came from the software itself, which was adding insane amounts of local contrast, sharpening, and tone mapping. Though I may not be technically correct, I felt that this whole Foveon thing was really just an illusion, almost a complete sham.
After using the X3F_Extract tool to create a DNG from the RAW files, I saw that the files, when untouched by the Sigma Raw converter, are nothing special, and that the sharpness everyone was seeing was mostly an illusion from Sigma Photo Pro.
Bayer sensors are superior *at the moment*, IMO.
If Sony took over the technology, then I would be interested again.